Analysis of the Cornfield Resolution
By Scott Curry, Equality Kansas
Several legislators aligned with the religious far-right have readied a
resolution that they will introduce in the Kansas House next session. The
wording of the resolution is very similar to Amendment 2, which recently
passed in Colorado, and several other similar amendments and resolutions that
are now being introduced all over the country. At first glance, the
resolution appears to be harmless enough, stating that since "all citizens
have equal fundamental rights and have equal protection under law," the
"preferences of some people are not entitled to have a priority over the
preferences of any other citizens."
If all citizens have equal fundamental rights under the constitution, and if
those fundamental rights include rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, then clearly the "preferences of some people are not entitled to
have a priority over the preferences" of others.
So why a resolution? The answer is in the resolution's next paragraph, which
states, "We memorialize Congress to refrain from enacting or amending any
legislation that defines certain sexual or life-style preferences as having
PROTECTED CLASS status."
With this sentence, the authors of the resolution have leapt from equality to
bashing. What they are trying to fool us into resolving is: Because the
Constitution states that we are all created equal, neither single
individuals, nor a group of individuals, needs the protection of our
government.
After all the talk of everybody being equal, most people do not recognize
what the authors of the resolution are stating when they use the term
"protected class". Most people, after reading through all the statements
about everybody else being equal, see "protected class" as meaning "special
class, with special rights."
At this point we have to ask ourselves whether homosexuals are asking for
special rights. Is the right to have housing a special right? Is the right to
be served food in a restaurant a special right? Is the right to have and
raise children without the state seizing them a special right? Is the right
to walk down the street and not get attacked because of who you are and whom
you love a special right? These do not seem to be special rights. These
appear to be the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness that the Constitution guarantees to every citizen of the United
States of America.
If we take these rights from homosexuals through a sleight-of-hand distortion
of the language, who's next? Will it be a race of individuals? Will it be the
Jews, Muslims, Catholics, or Protestants? Republicans? Democrats? Will it be
the trade unionists?
We would urge you to write to your legislators. Explain that without civil
rights laws that specifically ban discrimination based on sexual orientation,
gay people, as well as those suspected of being gay, can lose their jobs,
their homes, and their families and be refused service at public
accomodations simply because they are gay -- with no legal recourse. Let
Topeka know you are watching and you will no longer tolerate your rights
being usurped by right wing zealots who speak of special rights, while
wanting the very special right to discriminate against those whom they hate.